A collective of doctors has submitted an amicus brief to the Second Circuit Appeals Court on September 20, expressing concern that Sam Bankman-Fried‘s neurodivergence may have negatively influenced his criminal trial. The FTX co-founder’s diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are said to have posed significant challenges during the legal proceedings.
Challenges Posed by Neurodivergence
According to the brief, eight neurodivergence specialists assert that the trial environment was particularly challenging for Bankman-Fried due to his ASD and ADHD. They argue that these conditions contributed to his propensity for giving longwinded responses, which became a point of contention during the trial.
Issues Highlighted by the Doctors:
- Pre-Jury Examination: The Manhattan district court allowed government prosecutors to cross-examine Bankman-Fried without a jury present initially. This, the doctors claim, led to undue stress and frustration as the judge admonished him for lengthy and repetitive answers.
- Change in Response Style: This early examination phase caused Bankman-Fried to drastically shorten his responses in front of the jury, often to curt affirmations like “Yup.” The doctors suggest these brief replies could be misconstrued as arrogance or indifference.
- Lack of Necessary Resources: The brief also points out that Bankman-Fried lacked access to essential FTX documents and appropriate ADHD medication during the initial weeks of the trial, further hampering his ability to respond effectively.
Impact of Limited Access to Medication and Documents
The doctors emphasize the importance of concrete documentation for individuals with ASD, which helps anchor their responses during questioning. The absence of these documents, coupled with inadequate ADHD medication, left Bankman-Fried disadvantaged, appearing uncooperative or evasive. The change in medication dosage and type during the trial, as noted by his lawyers, is particularly highlighted for its negative impact on his ability to focus and function effectively.
A group of bankruptcy law professors also filed an amicus brief on the same day, focusing on the crossover between FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings and Bankman-Fried’s criminal trial. They argue that the bankruptcy estate’s assistance to prosecutors set a troubling precedent by intertwining Chapter 11 proceedings with criminal prosecutions, which could lead to aggressive legal strategies in future cases.
Concerns Raised:
- Extraordinary Assistance: The support provided by FTX’s bankruptcy estate to the criminal prosecution was unprecedented and raised fairness issues.
- Misinformation to Jurors: Jurors were reportedly misinformed about the potential for customer recovery from FTX, conflicting with later statements from the FTX estate indicating a surplus sufficient to repay creditors and potentially offer additional compensation.
The challenges posed by neurodivergence in legal settings highlight the need for courts to adapt and accommodate individuals with such conditions to ensure a fair trial. The implications of this case extend beyond the personal circumstances of Bankman-Fried, suggesting potential reforms in how legal proceedings address neurodiversity.
